I'm sorry in the short term for NY gun owners but in the long term this will likely result in only good supreme court rulings. I suspect this won't even be permitted to go into effect. Paging Alan Gura time to earn some money in NYS!

Basically they're declaring an assault weapon as anything having even one feature. 7 round magazine limits and removal of the old grandfathering in 94 of larger capacity magazines. If you don't destroy them you're a felon!

This one is going to get squarely kicked in the nuts by the courts. Which is good, if they went less extreme the Supreme Court might not rule so harshly against them. This way not only will they lose their HiCap and AW bans, but almost certainly every other state in the union too.

Sucks for you in the short term NY, but your sacrifice will pay off in the long term!

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A key New York Senate leader said he expects the state Legislature to vote Monday to enact what would be the nation's first gun control measure following last month's Connecticut school shooting.

"I think when all is said and done, we are going to pass a comprehensive gun bill today," Klein told reporters Monday morning. "I'm very excited about it. I am very confident we are going to vote on a comprehensive bill that will be agreed on by the governor, the Senate and Assembly."

People familiar with closed-door negotiations told The Associated Press a tentative deal was struck over the weekend.

The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons, limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, down from the current 10, and enact more stringent background checks for sales. Other elements, pushed by Republicans, would refine a mental health law to make it easier to confine people determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

Senate Republicans also have included a further crackdown on illegal gun trafficking into New York, the people said. Most New York City gun crimes involve weapons illegally brought into the state, state and city officials say.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal had not been discussed among rank and file legislators. They say the tentative deal will be debated behind closed doors Monday in the Senate and the Democrat-led Assembly and could be sent to the floor for a vote Monday.

A Cuomo administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal was not final, said there was no agreement yet.

A vote Monday would come exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The vote also would require Cuomo to issue a "message of necessity" that would dispense with the three days of public review that bills are supposed to have under the state constitution. There was no immediate comment from Cuomo, who made these gun control provisions a keynote of his State of the State address on Wednesday.

The negotiations faced several challenges.

The bill will be the first test of the new coalition in control of the state Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.

"It was always startling to me the vast cultural divide between New York City metropolitan view on gun control and most of the upstate communities," said Balboni, who represented part of Long Island for 10 years and was a Senate leader.

"Gun advocates see these incidents as almost cyclical and that in the wake of a national shooting incident, they have seen repeated calls for control," he said Monday. "They view it as a slippery slope to the banning and confiscation of weapons. Emotions run high and there will be tremendous pressure on all upstate legislators, Republicans and Democrats, to keep their base."

Also a concern is a major gun manufacturer in upstate New York.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve in Webster, N.Y., when two firefighters were slain responding to a fire. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

Republican Assemblyman Marc Butler warned last week that a more restrictive assault weapon ban could cost the factory 300 jobs.

Making something illegal opens resources to search for something else makes sense? Won't they need to look for the illegal "assault rifles" now? Banning "assault rifles" takes more resources to enforce than if they were legal. That's the most ass backwards excuse I've ever heard.

The opening post is a little too optimistic about Supreme Court rulings. The Heller and McDonald decisions were close decisions that only made it unconstitutional to completely ban handguns in the home.

I would be surprised if a majority of justices overruled many gun regulations. IIRC the Supreme Court has not been willing to announce the standard of review for gun regulations. Seems to me that is because the majorities in Heller and McDonald has one, two or three indecisive votes.

Do not be surprised if Kennedy almost always finds gun regulations constitutional. I think you should also not be so sure about Alito and Roberts finding many gun regulations unconstitutional.

The organizers point to a little-known guarantee of gun ownership contained in New York’s own “Civil Rights Law,” which was ratified the same year as the Constitution .

The state statute says the right to keep and bear arms “cannot be infringed” — stronger than the Second Amendment, which says it “shall not be infringed.’’

“They’re saying, ‘F--- the governor! F--- Cuomo! We’re not going to register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going to do it. People are going to resist,’’ said State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King, a member of the NRA board of directors. “They’re taking one of our guaranteed civil rights, and they’re taking it away.’’

The opening post is a little too optimistic about Supreme Court rulings. The Heller and McDonald decisions were close decisions that only made it unconstitutional to completely ban handguns in the home.

I would be surprised if a majority of justices overruled many gun regulations. IIRC the Supreme Court has not been willing to announce the standard of review for gun regulations. Seems to me that is because the majorities in Heller and McDonald has one, two or three indecisive votes.

Do not be surprised if Kennedy almost always finds gun regulations constitutional. I think you should also not be so sure about Alito and Roberts finding many gun regulations unconstitutional.

Based on what I heard Scalia say on TV, I wouldn't count on him necessarily either. Time to impeach justices too.

The opening post is a little too optimistic about Supreme Court rulings. The Heller and McDonald decisions were close decisions that only made it unconstitutional to completely ban handguns in the home.

I would be surprised if a majority of justices overruled many gun regulations. IIRC the Supreme Court has not been willing to announce the standard of review for gun regulations. Seems to me that is because the majorities in Heller and McDonald has one, two or three indecisive votes.

Do not be surprised if Kennedy almost always finds gun regulations constitutional. I think you should also not be so sure about Alito and Roberts finding many gun regulations unconstitutional.

I actually am optimistic that the court will overturn nearly every gun control regulation that people are freaking about now. When the SCOTUS said that their rulings did not mean that any person could have any arm, they likely meant crazy people, felons, and fully automatic weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a decision saying that concealed carry is a right. (keep and bear, not just keep)

They ruled that the 2nd amendment says "since we need a militia, individual people have to have arms", and that it doesn't matter if we think the need for a militia is obsolete since we have professional standing armies, thats what the constitution says. They did not take out a sharpie and cross out the whole militia clause and said "never mind about that", its in there as the justification for the 2nd amendment. Well, if thats the case, you need a damned good reason to ban high-cap magazines.

You also have to remember that even though the first amendment has limitations (the whole "can't yell fire in a crowded theater thing"), the fact that it has limitations doesn't change the reality that the supreme court has been absolutely fanatical about guarding the 1st amendment, to the point where when a law banning funeral protests, bans on some of the most depraved porno imaginable, or bans on children buying violent video games are all struck down, we all shrug and say "of course, thats about what we expected".

5 justices on the SCOTUS could very well be just as fanatical about guarding the 2nd. We just don't know yet, but I suspect they will be.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry